In Ontario, condominium boards are not private clubs or informal committees. They are statutory governing bodies bound by law, subject to fiduciary obligations, and required to conduct themselves with transparency, fairness, and accountability. When a board abuses its authority or disregards the rights of owners, the consequences are not merely political-they are legal.
This post examines how a series of actions taken by a condominium board violated core provisions of the Condominium Act, 1998. Each section below matches a specific misconduct with the corresponding statutory breach.
1. Denial of Service Dog Accommodation
What Happened: A resident with a disability requested accommodation for a service dog. The board delayed, obfuscated, and ultimately denied the request, demanding irrelevant documentation.
Why It Was Illegal:
- Section 17(4): Prohibits oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct toward an owner.
- Section 37(1)(a): Duty to act honestly and in good faith.
- Section 37(1)(b): Duty to exercise care, diligence, and reasonable judgment.
- Human Rights Code: Requires accommodation unless undue hardship is proven, which the board failed to even attempt.
2. Retaliatory Governance and Selective Rule Enforcement
What Happened: Rules were enforced inconsistently: others were allowed large dogs, while this resident was selectively targeted. Multiple owners have multiple pets, yet the one pet rule was enforced only against one owner.
Why It Was Illegal:
- Section 135(1): Prohibits oppression, unfair prejudice, or disregard for owner interests.
- Section 17(3): Requires consistent enforcement of rules and governing documents.
- Natural justice: Requires procedural fairness and non-discrimination.
3. Frivolous Appeal of a Settled Issue
What Happened: The board appealed a court ruling despite being fully aware that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and served only to escalate conflict and costs.
Why It Was Illegal:
- Section 37(1): Board must act in the best interests of the corporation.
- Fiduciary duty: Precedents establish that directors may be personally liable for bad-faith or self-serving decisions.
- Breach of trust: Using common funds to pursue a baseless legal claim is financial misconduct.
4. Obstruction and Overcharging for Records
What Happened: The board redacted non-sensitive records, delayed access, and attempted to charge excessive fees to the owner who requested them. The Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) found these practices unlawful.
Why It Was Illegal:
- Section 55(3): Mandates access to records upon request.
- O. Reg. 48/01, s. 13.3: Limits charges and dictates proper redaction practices.
- CAT rulings: Clearly establish that obstruction or overcharging is a breach of statutory duties.
5. Discriminatory Application of Dog Rules
What Happened: The board claimed there was a weight limit on dogs (e.g., 20 lbs), which was not supported by the rules. Meanwhile, other residents – including a former director – were allowed to keep large dogs.
Why It Was Illegal:
- Section 17(3): Requires uniform application of rules.
- Section 135: Unequal enforcement is oppressive.
- Human Rights Code: Discriminatory rule enforcement is unlawful.
6. Failure to Notify Owners Before Commencing Litigation
What Happened: The board initiated costly legal proceedings, including an appeal, without notifying owners or providing an opportunity to requisition a meeting. Owners were not informed about the risks, rationale, or financial implications.
Why It Was Illegal:
- Section 23(2): Corporations must give written notice to all owners before commencing litigation.
- Section 23(3): Allows bypassing notice only if giving it would prejudice the corporation. No such risk was present here.
- Section 46: Owners have the right to requisition meetings – a right nullified when notice is withheld.
Conclusion: Multiple Legal Violations, One Pattern of Abuse
The above examples reveal a pattern of conduct that is not only unethical, but unlawful. The board has violated its statutory duties under the Condominium Act, 1998, its fiduciary obligations to owners, and its obligation to accommodate under the Human Rights Code.
These violations have resulted in:
- Financial losses to the corporation
- Court-ordered costs and damage awards
- Loss of public confidence in the board
- Exposure to personal liability for directors
Legal governance is not optional. Owners are not passive tenants. When boards abuse their power, the law provides tools to hold them accountable.
Owners should demand better- or demand change.
📰 For more resources, rulings, and real examples, visit CondoTribune.com.
📣 Because knowing your rights is the first step to enforcing them.
👉 If you believe your rights have been violated, contact us confidentially through the Condo Leak Tipline at www.CondoTribune.com/tipline – your story matters, and you’re not alone.
📝 While we are not lawyers, we’ve spent years learning the Condominium Act, tribunal process, and case law – and we’re here to help point you in the right direction.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal guidance specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.
